"You're doing brilliantly - Only five more questions to go and not so much as a scratch so far! Well done!"

"Youre known for having a liking for men who look like women."
- Linda

"FFS I'm sick and tired of having to see a bloke bend over to pick something up or lean over and see their arse crack. For christ's sake pull your pants up or buy some underpants you bogan because nobody want's to see it. And this is a boat building shed (well one of them) not a porn studio."
- Craig

You have been awarded the TPM medal of distinction! This is our second highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.

The fact that you progressed through this activity without being hit and biting only one bullet suggests that your beliefs about God are internally consistent and well thought out.

A direct hit would have occurred had you answered in a way that implied a logical contradiction. The bitten bullet occurred because you responded in a way that required that you held a view that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. However, because you bit only one bullet and avoided direct hits completely you still qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!

I'd like to see someone like Nnanden or any other strongly religious people do this. Would be interesting..

Only not taking direct hits should matter. I don't see why 'biting bullets' should count as a damage. The only thing that should matter is whether my views are consistent and logical; If the implication of the views is that a view widely held as truth by society is disproved then that shouldn't be seen as a fault in my set of views IMO

Battleground Analysis
Congratulations!
You have been awarded the TPM medal of distinction! This is our second highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.

The fact that you progressed through this activity being hit only once and biting no bullets suggests that your beliefs about God are well thought out and almost entirely internally consistent.

The direct hit you suffered occurred because one set of your answers implied a logical contradiction. At the bottom of this page, we have reproduced the analysis of your direct hit. You would have bitten bullets had you responded in ways that required that you held views that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. However, this did not occur which means that despite the direct hit you qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!

You've just taken a direct hit! Earlier you said that it is not justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, paying no regard to the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of this conviction, but now you say it's justifiable to believe in God on just these grounds. That's a flagrant contradiction!

The "having *** with frozen chickens" hypothetical was very interesting. Given the choices available, I think I said it was OK for the individual guy - I mean, it's a bit strange, but I'm not sure what to make of it morally. Then I said he shouldn't be punished (I was thinking, how do you legislate on this?). But then when it asked whether I thought a society where this was normal was OK, I thought "what might I think of a society where having *** with frozen chickens is the norm?" And I said it was bad.